WikiDiscuss

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:38:37AM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen
wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
> >>Examples erroneously tagged as artificial: cu'u le jbogri .e le
> >>flalu la lojban cu ba'e du la loglan This is only a slightly
> >>edited version of: 15:08 cu'u le jbogri .e le flalu le lojbo
> >>cu ba'e du le loglo
> >
> >Erm, that's not tagged as artificial.
>
> The line below says:

The keyword here would be "below".

> "Artificial? From the CLL:"

That whole line refers to the next example.

> I assumed they referred to separate sentences, since I tend to see
> CLL examples as live usages.

Ah. I have no evidence that the CLL example wasn't simple made up,
however.

> >>lo nu mi cliva cu curmi te ca'i lo minde be lo nolraitru
> >>
> >>s/minde/midnoi (to lo minde cu prenu toi)
> >
> >mi pilno lu te minde li'u
>
> Maybe I am missing something here, but the x3 of minde is the
> action that is commanded. Can this commanded action be a basis for
> authority?

Yes. The king has commanded that X happen, thus giving me the
authority to carry it out.

> >>Also, I am a bit worried on whether you can say "so'a da"
> >>without restricting it to "prenu" or some such — is "ku'u lo
> >>lijda" sufficient to constrain quantification in the main
> >>clause?
> >
> >Well, it is limited to things that can cusku fi lo cevni; is that
> >not sufficient?
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think quantified claims are
> constrained by the main selbri. If they were, it would be
> impossible to predicate anything over everything (universal
> claims).

You're saying, then, that:

ro da limna

is a true statement, because quantified claims are not constrained
by the main selbri. Ummmm...

It is the conflict between the quantification and the claim that
makes quantified claims true or untrue (from a given semantic
perspecitve, outside BPFK scope, blah blah blah).

-Robin